Bioware cofounder and General Manager Dr. Ray Muzyka waded in to the small-but-growing Internet furor over the ending to Mass Effect 3 today, promising to take fan complaints about the conclusion into account while crafting new "content initiatives" for the game. But it's hard to say at this point whether such new content will represent a significant change for the game's controversial ending, or just add more context and closure to the established narrative.

In a message posted on the official Bioware blog, Muzyka said he was "genuinely surprised" by the negative reactions to the game's ending, calling such responses "incredibly painful." He added he is trying to "accept the criticism and feedback with humility," and said the development team is listening to that feedback while creating new content for the game.

Building on their research, Exec Producer Casey Hudson and the team are hard at work on a number of game content initiatives that will help answer the questions, providing more clarity for those seeking further closure to their journey. You'll hear more on this in April. We're working hard to maintain the right balance between the artistic integrity of the original story while addressing the fan feedback we've received. This is in addition to our existing plan to continue providing new Mass Effect content and new full games, so rest assured that your journey in the Mass Effect universe can, and will, continue.

But these comments run somewhat counter to those offered by Bioware-Mythic Senior Creative Director Paul Barnett at a Smithsonian "Art of Video Games" event last week. As reported by Vox Games, Barnett compared the rights of video game creators to design their own stories to those of authors in other media.

If computer games are art than I fully endorse the author of the artwork to have a statement about what they believe should happen. Just as J.K. Rowling can end her books and say that is the end of Harry Potter. I don't think she should be forced to make another one.

Did Bioware cave?

Warning: The remainder of this piece contains significant spoilers for the ending to Mass Effect 3.

So, is Bioware effectively giving up some of its authorial control over its own work by ceding the direction of the continuing Mass Effect narrative to a group of angry fans? The tone of today's comments certainly suggests as much, offering nothing but respect for and commiseration with fan criticism. Some in the press and fan communities are already reporting that Muzyka's comments are confirmation that the company is in fact working on a "new ending" for the game.

But at the moment it's hard to say how much today's comments represent a real change of direction for Bioware and how much is just lip service to calm a rowdy section of the fan base. We've always known that the Mass Effect 3 story would be continued through future downloadable content, after all, and some of the game's branching endings already strongly suggested that Commander Shepard's story was not, in fact, complete.

The only somewhat concrete information we have about Bioware's upcoming "game content initiatives" for now is that they will help fans "seeking more clarity to questions or looking for more closure." While this could technically describe a set of completely new ending options for the games, it sounds more like a description for a series of side-stories that help explain and flesh out the existing narrative.

We won't know the extent to which the game's current ending has really been altered until this new content is actually released. Even then, it will be hard to determine how different that content would have been in some counterfactual world where Bioware simply continued the Mass Effect story in the way it intended, absent any organized fan outcry.

Still, even paying lip service to the rights of fans to guide changes to a story could set a dangerous precedent. While gamers are used to choosing paths through branching interactive narratives, letting a small group of consumers actually craft the shape of those paths is just asking for trouble. Not only would game creators in such an environment be constantly second guessing their decisions for fear of upsetting some subgroup of players or another, but any player-guided changes would run a large risk of succumbing to the banality of design by a committee of amateurs, pushing game narrative further into safe and predictable territory.

It's good to hear that Bioware is "working hard to maintain the right balance" between developer control and fan input on this score, because the company is currently walking a very thin tightrope suspended between being too accomodating to fan demands on one side and too deaf to valid concerns on the other.

Kyle Orland
Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in the Washington, DC area. Emailkyle.orland@arstechnica.com//Twitter@KyleOrl

Not sure why Muzyka is surprised. Bioware has been going downhill ever since the EA take over. Their last good game in my opinion was Dragon Age Origins . Unsurprisingly, it was also the last game that was mostly created and designed without EA.

I'm one of the minority who thinks Mass Effect 1 was better than 2. Mass effect 2 and 3 are just shooters with an interactive story. The RPG elements are so stripped out of them they they no longer qualify as RPGs in my opinion. I'm not saying 1 was perfect, but I'll take it with its flaws over 2 and 3 any day.

EA destroys every good studio it touches by forcing them to dumb down and create a bigger casual market while still releasing a new game in the series every single year regardless of quality. We saw that with Mass Effect 2, Dragon Age 2, and now with Mass Effect 3.

I know it takes a lot of money to develop modern games, but EA would have been my last choice for a partner given their history. I'll be surprised if Bioware is even around in 5 years or even less if The Old Republic flops.

I Would just like to see more epilogue. The whole "look magic!" stuff was kind of a downer, but I am more interested in what happens everywhere. Does civilization rebuild, are things vastly different, etc. I am hoping added DLC addresses some of this.

I guess by "content incentives" they really mean "PAID content incentives", i.e. pay $10 (or whatever) for DLC if you would like to see the real ending. I guess it's not enough that you are already forced to play multiplayer if you want to get the "best" ending of the currently avaliable endings (the ones that were included in the $60 game).

For some reason, articles like these keep referring to those upset at the ending as a 'minority.' Is there some sort of data for this? I know that the angriest are always the loudest, but I honestly haven't heard from any of my friends going, "Yeah bro, that was a great ending." No, the nicest thing about the ending I've heard is, "Yeah... it was a bit of a letdown but oh well."

EAed! Is it just me or do every studio that gets bought out by EA always go to shit?

You can say that again. The older Command and Conquer games that were made by Westwood were awesome for their time. Red Alert is a classic. Then EA acquired the franchise and gradually turned it into crap.

For some reason, articles like these keep referring to those upset at the ending as a 'minority.' Is there some sort of data for this? I know that the angriest are always the loudest, but I honestly haven't heard from any of my friends going, "Yeah bro, that was a great ending." No, the nicest thing about the ending I've heard is, "Yeah... it was a bit of a letdown but oh well."

Yeah. Apart from a a very few posters in comment sections I haven't heard a single person say "wow, great ending".

Speaking as a PS3 player here- that is, I've played ME2 and ME3, and watched the interactive comic that tells the story of the first game.

Now, this is my opinion, and I label it as such: I personally feel that BioWare is certainly allowed the creative license to end the story however they wish. Happily, tragically, anywhere in between.

My problem with it is the rather slap-dash way the ending was put together. The level of creativity normally exhibited by the writing staff of BioWare seemed to be absent; the writing was poor, and there was a tangible lack of attention given to wrapping up the entire series. During the last ten minutes of the series, BioWare just gave up, packed up its toys, and went home. As a fan that's invested countless hours in the series, it felt like an insult.

That said, I don't want them to shout "mulligan" and re-write it. It's done and over with.

For some reason, articles like these keep referring to those upset at the ending as a 'minority.' Is there some sort of data for this? I know that the angriest are always the loudest, but I honestly haven't heard from any of my friends going, "Yeah bro, that was a great ending." No, the nicest thing about the ending I've heard is, "Yeah... it was a bit of a letdown but oh well."

I agree. I understand the concerns Kyle has about changing an existing ending (I do not share them however), but he implements the claim that only a few players dislike this ending into his argument, so he has at least to deliver some facts for this or his whole conclusion is invalid.

Well look, 80% of respondents to IGNs poll say they dislike the ending out of a 15k sample size, and if you look at Amazon's reviews they are split between those who give one star because of the ending and those who give three or five stars despite the ending, with very few reviewers actually liking the ending. There is a Facebook campaign requesting a better ending with 50k members, and the Bioware forums are awash with very little else. That is a pretty clear response by the public, and the amazing thing is that they did not see it coming.

I've played and finished all three of the games, and yes, the ME3 ending -is- that bad. It is objectively poor, nonsensical, goes against character and series principles and themes, and willfully seems to go out of its way to nullify the players efforts over both the preceding game and the earlier games. Its as if the writing team went home, a producer took over and deliberately set out to create a badly-written, downbeat, counter-ethos ending.

All I can imagine is that it must have been a huge conflict of opinion within the dev team to cause them to delay finalising the ending until Nov 2011, and that then they neglected to user-group-test the end with actual fans.

For some reason, articles like these keep referring to those upset at the ending as a 'minority.' Is there some sort of data for this? I know that the angriest are always the loudest, but I honestly haven't heard from any of my friends going, "Yeah bro, that was a great ending." No, the nicest thing about the ending I've heard is, "Yeah... it was a bit of a letdown but oh well."

do you have any data to suggest that the people who actively want the game changed are anything but a very vocal minority?

We can assume minority until we see valid data saying otherwise.

BTW - there is a big difference between "didn't like the ending/it could have been better, but whatever" and "CHANGE THE ENDING NOW, MY LIFE IS OVER, THE SERIES IS RUINED FOR ME, EA IS SATAN"

EDIT - not liking it for one or more reasons is one thing, but wanting DLC the complete rewrites it is another, and then demanding and protesting that this happen is entirely another...

For some reason, articles like these keep referring to those upset at the ending as a 'minority.' Is there some sort of data for this? I know that the angriest are always the loudest, but I honestly haven't heard from any of my friends going, "Yeah bro, that was a great ending." No, the nicest thing about the ending I've heard is, "Yeah... it was a bit of a letdown but oh well."

My meaning there was that the people organizing and arguing loudly about it on the Internet are a minority of the millions of people who have bought the game. I don't know of any comprehensive, scientific survey of all those players as to aggregate opinion.

For some reason, articles like these keep referring to those upset at the ending as a 'minority.' Is there some sort of data for this? I know that the angriest are always the loudest, but I honestly haven't heard from any of my friends going, "Yeah bro, that was a great ending." No, the nicest thing about the ending I've heard is, "Yeah... it was a bit of a letdown but oh well."

do you have any data to suggest that the people who actively want the game changed are anything but a very vocal minority?

We can assume minority until we see valid data saying otherwise.

BTW - there is a big difference between "didn't like the ending/it could have been better, but whatever" and "CHANGE THE ENDING NOW, MY LIFE IS OVER, THE SERIES IS RUINED FOR ME, EA IS SATAN"

Here's the thing though, this article isn't about the people who are crying for a new ending, it's about Bioware's response to the negativity about the ending. Therefore by extension this is what the discussion is about.

It's safer to say in this situation that there are less satisfied with the ending than there are, and we can assume minority there until we see valid data saying otherwise. But then, my assertion and your assertion would both just be assumptions posted purely for the sake of disagreement, as they are based on what we believe of the situation.

Personally I felt reasonably satisfied with the ending. I don't really know what my 'perfect' ending would even be, and while the Mass Effect universe was probably one of the most complex and engaging sci-fi universes created in entertainment history (no, i'm not going to claim it surpasses star wars / star trek / galaxy quest ) I think the fact we don't have all the answers is important. Unless somehow our players became omniscient, they SHOULD be really confused about this entire thing. We learn what we can, but we're not going to get all the answers.

Through all of the complaints (and to be fair, some are valid), I haven't really seen any good suggestions on how the story could have even ended in a way that would please fans. Would it have been nice to see more of your decisions play a role in the ending? Sure, but then again how many of us just looked up the 'right' way to play the ME2 ending to keep everyone alive?

In all, I sincerely hope anything they do is simply additional information into the ending, maybe instead of a brief cutscene a bit more of a look into how each character is doing based upon your decisions or the ramifications of your actions across the galaxy. But I really hope they don't cave and change it, and that's a sentiment I've seen echoed across most of the people I know within the industry. The precedent that a studio will change a game's ending due to fan feedback will have horrific ramifications. Gamer's entitlement already is a rampant problem.

Not sure why Muzyka is surprised. Bioware has been going downhill ever since the EA take over. Their last good game in my opinion was Dragon Age Origins . Unsurprisingly, it was also the last game that was mostly created and designed without EA.

I'm one of the minority who thinks Mass Effect 1 was better than 2. Mass effect 2 and 3 are just shooters with an interactive story. The RPG elements are so stripped out of them they they no longer qualify as RPGs in my opinion. I'm not saying 1 was perfect, but I'll take it with its flaws over 2 and 3 any day.

EA destroys every good studio it touches by forcing them to dumb down and create a bigger casual market while still releasing a new game in the series every single year regardless of quality. We saw that with Mass Effect 2, Dragon Age 2, and now with Mass Effect 3.

I know it takes a lot of money to develop modern games, but EA would have been my last choice for a partner given their history. I'll be surprised if Bioware is even around in 5 years or even less if The Old Republic flops.

If a game allows you to choose your role in combat and through the story, then it is an RPG as much as any other game that does the same. You seem to be a part of that group of people who think that traditional trappings that went along with RPG's have to remain or the game is "dumbed down" or "stripped" or "overly streamlined"...

They are ROLE playing games, not ROLL playing games. A class based shooter with choice in shooting levels and some side-levels that allowed you to talk to people and provide shades for your character is as much an rpg as a table top affair

What would be so bad about that? Game devs already do market research to gauge what ending the majority of people want, wouldn't it be great if you didn't have to go with the common denominator and could purchase an ending that was more suited to your narrative tastes?

I am still going through Mass Effect 3, so i have no idea what the sound and fury is truly about. But i mean damn is it THAT serious?

Have you ever played KOTOR2? It's like that; a masterful crafting of a thoughtful and touching metaphysical journey, touching delicately on fate and free will, the human spirit, the power of community, and the giant cosmic equation, with an ending that's like being shot in the face with a shit-powered cannon. Only somehow worse than KOTOR2.

It literally left me speechless for a few minutes while I tried to reconcile the awfulness and detached content of the ending with the amazing buildup (specifically the first 90% of ME3, but also the earlier games). It's as if Bioware scrapped the original intended ending and copy/pasted both the premise and conclusion from some teenager's very pulpy and obscure and awful amateur sci-fi novel.

I'm really bitter after the ending of Lost, and I'm still bitter about the end of X-Files. So now when I hear that some team of writers has really screwed up the ending of a big story that a lot of people are invested in, my knee-jerk reaction is to side with the fans. Go fans!

The more I think about the ending, the more I am persuaded over to the whole "Indoctrination Theory", but this response throws more doubt on that being their 'true intention'. But really...the colors of the end choices, apparently waking up on Earth if you choose 'destroy', the nonsensical end movies if you don't, the tie-in with the hallucidreams throughout the game...

Either way, Bioware has all but lost me as a customer at this point. Whatever their intentions and whatever DLC is introduced, ending the series that way is just a total letdown. I might come back if they release FREE DLC that adds a satisfying ending, otherwise...there are other good games by good companies out there. I'll just make up a better ending in my imagination.

Not sure why Muzyka is surprised. Bioware has been going downhill ever since the EA take over. Their last good game in my opinion was Dragon Age Origins . Unsurprisingly, it was also the last game that was mostly created and designed without EA.

I'm one of the minority who thinks Mass Effect 1 was better than 2. Mass effect 2 and 3 are just shooters with an interactive story. The RPG elements are so stripped out of them they they no longer qualify as RPGs in my opinion. I'm not saying 1 was perfect, but I'll take it with its flaws over 2 and 3 any day.

EA destroys every good studio it touches by forcing them to dumb down and create a bigger casual market while still releasing a new game in the series every single year regardless of quality. We saw that with Mass Effect 2, Dragon Age 2, and now with Mass Effect 3.

I know it takes a lot of money to develop modern games, but EA would have been my last choice for a partner given their history. I'll be surprised if Bioware is even around in 5 years or even less if The Old Republic flops.

If a game allows you to choose your role in combat and through the story, then it is an RPG as much as any other game that does the same. You seem to be a part of that group of people who think that traditional trappings that went along with RPG's have to remain or the game is "dumbed down" or "stripped" or "overly streamlined"...

They are ROLE playing games, not ROLL playing games. A class based shooter with choice in shooting levels and some side-levels that allowed you to talk to people and provide shades for your character is as much an rpg as a table top affair

I disagree. That is an action adventure game like Zelda etc. Roleplaying, to me at least, means that the character is dependent on stats for his or her abilities, not player twitch skill. What is an action adventure game to you?

I'm really bitter after the ending of Lost, and I'm still bitter about the end of X-Files. So now when I hear that some team of writers has really screwed up the ending of a big story that a lot of people are invested in, my knee-jerk reaction is to side with the fans. Go fans!

X-Files they decided to leave 'open' in the event that they decide to wrap it up with some cash grab movie-based closure(which never happened). Unfortunately this isn't even what happened here. (Though it wouldn't surprise me if it did.)

Not sure why Muzyka is surprised. Bioware has been going downhill ever since the EA take over.

Haplo wrote:

EAed! Is it just me or do every studio that gets bought out by EA always go to shit?

Enough of this shit. Just enough, already. The game is fantastic, the best in the series, but just because it has a bit of a crap ending suddenly "EA destroyed Bioware and kicked my dog". Just stop it.

What would be so bad about that? Game devs already do market research to gauge what ending the majority of people want, wouldn't it be great if you didn't have to go with the common denominator and could purchase an ending that was more suited to your narrative tastes?

For some reason, articles like these keep referring to those upset at the ending as a 'minority.' Is there some sort of data for this? I know that the angriest are always the loudest, but I honestly haven't heard from any of my friends going, "Yeah bro, that was a great ending." No, the nicest thing about the ending I've heard is, "Yeah... it was a bit of a letdown but oh well."

do you have any data to suggest that the people who actively want the game changed are anything but a very vocal minority?

We can assume minority until we see valid data saying otherwise.

BTW - there is a big difference between "didn't like the ending/it could have been better, but whatever" and "CHANGE THE ENDING NOW, MY LIFE IS OVER, THE SERIES IS RUINED FOR ME, EA IS SATAN"

Here's the thing though, this article isn't about the people who are crying for a new ending, it's about Bioware's response to the negativity about the ending. Therefore by extension this is what the discussion is about.

Please. They wouldn't be replying at all if it weren't for the child play thing and all of the other more extreme reactions. This is an article about Bioware responding to THAT.

Still, even paying lip service to the rights of fans to guide changes to a story could set a dangerous precedent.

I've read multiple articles which state that changing the ending would set a dangerous precedent- but this is a precedent has already been set (repeatedly, if you include other forms of media!)

Look at the 2008 release of Fallout 3, which received just as much fan discontent as the ME3 has, alongside viscously critical reviews. The response from Bethesda was quite similar to Bioware's initial commentary, as seen here. http://news.softpedia.com/news/Bethesda ... 3137.shtml

…and after a period of continued, unabated criticism, they capitulated and released the Broken Steel expansion for the game. This DLC changed the original ending as well as adding new questlines and content. Broken Steel apparently was well-received, and did help to repair Bethesda's relationship with their player base.

The changes that Mass Effect fans are campaigning for are all things that have been granted before, are things that are not unreasonable to ask for as a customer, and that *can* be granted. Why do op-eds like this one continue to characterize this show of consumer discontent as "new" and "dangerous"?

For some reason, articles like these keep referring to those upset at the ending as a 'minority.' Is there some sort of data for this? I know that the angriest are always the loudest, but I honestly haven't heard from any of my friends going, "Yeah bro, that was a great ending." No, the nicest thing about the ending I've heard is, "Yeah... it was a bit of a letdown but oh well."

The vast majority of ordinary, well-adjusted human beings react to the ending like so:"That was it? Hmm, that was kinda shit. Oh well." /off to play another game and forget about it

It's entirely possible for someone to dislike the ending but still not get in on this pathetic circle jerk.

Hmm. Is it fair to say it's just a small group of angry fans? I'm not sure it's not fair, but the outcry seems pretty universal to me. But then I'm an angry fan so I'm biased.

On the larger issue on who " owns" a game's story, I thinks it's a very tough question. I think the key thing is for a studio to do what it wants while respecting its audience. The studio does not get to be successful if they over alienate its audience. In my opinion Bioware's current ending leaves too many questions unanswered. Add in the times it has been said that there won't be any games set past this point in the timeline and it feels, to me, that my interest in Bioware's characters and universe is not being given the proper respect.

Ending a series is hard, no doubt, but others have done so successfully. The ending of the first Halo trilogy in Halo 3 was widely praised for instance. Both for tieing up the storyline and fit hinting that there was more to come without coming off as overly artsy or secretive as ME3's did. Even Halo 2's none ding was better because there was the promise to "Finish the fight." Biowaee and the ME3 ending offered fans no such reassurances.